War Against ISIS

Rimasta

Member
I will give you a slight modified scenario. A Russian fighter briefly violates (or not, we are not sure about the first time yet) Turkish airspace again. A Turkish F-16 shoots at it from Turkish airspace. Moskva is watching and retaliates, taking down the F-16, inside Turkey. Is it an attack on Turkish (NATO) soil? Can Turkey invoke art.5?
Well if Turkish airspace was violated, and especially if the Russians retaliate against the Turks for what they claim to be territorial defense, then yes article 5 can definitely be invoked and it most likely would be.

If the US decided to fly fighters into Russia, and Russia shoots down a US aircraft (as happened many times during the Cold War), would the United States be justified in retaliating when Russia was defending its airspace? Should we just go shoot down some Russian bombers the next time they want to overfly a carrier? No, that would be stupid.

I remember when Russia shot down a South Korean KAL 747 with hundreds of civilian passengers on board for violating the airspace over the Kamchatka Peninsula. The US military doesn't fly converted 747's, especially with passenger windows and at cruising speed and altitude. Should South Korea have retaliated? Would they be justified?

You violate a countries airspace, don't act surprised when the country your flying over delivers on the public threats they made. I guess some red lines do exist.
 

chris

New Member
Well if Turkish airspace was violated, and especially if the Russians retaliate against the Turks for what they claim to be territorial defense, then yes article 5 can definitely be invoked and it most likely would be.

If the US decided to fly fighters into Russia, and Russia shoots down a US aircraft (as happened many times during the Cold War), would the United States be justified in retaliating when Russia was defending its airspace? Should we just go shoot down some Russian bombers the next time they want to overfly a carrier? No, that would be stupid.

I remember when Russia shot down a South Korean KAL 747 with hundreds of civilian passengers on board for violating the airspace over the Kamchatka Peninsula. The US military doesn't fly converted 747's, especially with passenger windows and at cruising speed and altitude. Should South Korea have retaliated? Would they be justified?

You violate a countries airspace, don't act surprised when the country your flying over delivers on the public threats they made. I guess some red lines do exist.
Yes but...

This is missing the first part of my post. Let me try again and put what you say (and I agree with) into context.

It is my opinion and only my opinion after watching the Syrian issue for years, that Turkey is trying to drag NATO into the Syrian conflict.

Again it is my opinion that Erdogan cannot be trusted and his agenda seems to be radically different with that of most NATO members, US included.

In that context, I am deeply concerned with Turkey's ability to drag us all into it. Are we willing to go to war with Russia for another 17 sec intrusion into Turkish airspace? Russians will shoot back this time. Putin cannot handle another fighter down without a response.

Even without an airspace violation, Turkey is able to manufacture data. I don't trust them enough on that. Sure, US and the allies will figure it out but their place will be a lose-lose situation. They will have to admit that a NATO member lies or support Turkey. If they support Turkey's position, how are they going to handle an article 5 invocation? Go to war over a lie or shutter NATO's credibility by ignoring it?

I just don't like where this is going.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well if Turkish airspace was violated, and especially if the Russians retaliate against the Turks for what they claim to be territorial defense, then yes article 5 can definitely be invoked and it most likely would be.
That's still a pretty significant "if". And the question becomes, given routine violations of Syrian airspace by the Turks, do they have a leg to stand on? In 2012 Erdogan himself said that a small violation like that could never justify a shootdown. This was after a Turkish F-4 recon plane was shot down by the Syrians for an alleged airspace violation. Since then the Turks have shot down Syrian airplanes in Syrian airspace, and have been quietly trying to enforce an unofficial no fly zone in the northern part of Latakia. The fighters on the ground are not just Turkish nationals, but Turkish citizens, and prominent ones. They receive weapon convoys from Turkey. The Turkish air force is essentially trying to provide them with air cover. What does this look like? Russia crossing a red line? Or the Turks trying to protect some of the rebel groups in northern Syria?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Some photos from the convoy struck. Russia is increasing air and artillery strikes against targets near the Turkish border, likely because of the arms and fighters flowing in to Syria from there.

Ответка - Colonel Cassad

EDIT: The convoy belonged to IHH, an organization with ties to radical Islamists world wide, that has been known to supply weapons to rebels throughout Syria. One of their trucks in the past had been accidentally stopped by Turkish police who discovered it to be full of weapons under a thin layer of humanitarian aid. When the local prosecutor attempted to investigate, he was silenced, and later removed from office. Erdogan said this was a secret intelligence operation, and called the journalists who tried to pursue the story "spies". Their organization has also been caught with weapons and instructions on explosives manufacture at one of their offices, with plans for terror attacks in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2493330.html
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

The Syrian Army has begun an offensive against the positions of the Turkmen in Latakia, near where the jet was shot down.

СирийÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð°Ñ€Ð¼Ð¸Ñ Ð½Ð°Ñ‡Ð°Ð»Ð° наÑтупление в Джебель ат-Туркман на меÑте Ð¿Ð°Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ñ€Ð¾ÑÑийÑкого Ñу-24 | Военный информатор

Rafales from the Charles de Gaulle have begun air strikes against targets in Syria.

Análisis Militares: El parte de la aviación francesa (24-11-2015)

Russian air strikes have begun selectively targeting leadership figures in the rebel groups. Also a total of 12 airstrikes were carried out in the last 12 hours in territory held by the Syrian Turkmen targeting oil convoys and rebel positions.

СпаÑти капитана Мурахтина - Colonel Cassad

There is information that the Syrian Turkmen have received Strela-2M MANPADS. Details are lacking.

СирийÑкие туркмены убившие летчика Су-24 получили в Ñвое раÑпорÑжение ПЗРК Стрела-2Ðœ | Военный информатор

The promised S-400 unit has been airlifted to Crimea in the last 24 hours. A squadron of fighters is also planned, either Su-27SM3 or Su-30SM.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ðîññèÿ ðàçâåðíóëà â Ñèðèè ðàêåòíûé êîìïëåêñ Ñ-400
РоÑÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¿ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ±Ñ€Ð°Ñывает дополнительные Ñамолеты в Сирию Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¸ÐºÑ€Ñ‹Ñ‚Ð¸Ñ Ð±Ð¾Ð¼Ð±Ð°Ñ€Ð´Ð¸Ñ€Ð¾Ð²Ñ‰Ð¸ÐºÐ¾Ð² от возможных атак | Военный информатор

The government of Crimea is cancelling their contract with a Turkish building firm, for building a Mosque in Crimea.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Âëàñòè Êðûìà îòêàçûâàþòñÿ îò óñëóã òóðåöêîãî ïîäðÿä÷èêà ïî ñòðîèòåëüñòâó ìå÷åòè

Erdogan denies allegations of Turkey purchasing oil from ISIS, and accuses Assad of supporting ISIS. He says they will continue supporting the moderate opposition and the Syrian Turkmen who are fighting against Assad. He also said Turkey is ready to respond in the same way if Turkish airspace is violated.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ýðäîãàí îáâèíèë Àñàäà è åãî ñòîðîííèêîâ â ôèíàíñèðîâàíèè "Èñëàìñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà"
Эрдоган: Ð¢ÑƒÑ€Ñ†Ð¸Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ñтупит так же в Ñлучае Ð½Ð°Ñ€ÑƒÑˆÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐµÐµ границ - Первый по Ñрочным новоÑÑ‚Ñм — LIFE | NEWS

Meanwhile Russia is working on sanctions against Turkey.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ìåäâåäåâ ïîðó÷èë ðàçðàáîòàòü ñàíêöèè â îòíîøåíèè Òóðöèè

Yet another photo of a T-90A near Aleppo. Up until now it was assumed that these are Russian tanks, but but there is a chance that these tanks may have been sold (or "sold" under the circumstances) to Syria. In which case I can't help but wonder if they're newly built or from Russian Army stocks.

Т-90Рпод Ðлеппо - Юрий ЛÑмин
 

Rimasta

Member
That's still a pretty significant "if". And the question becomes, given routine violations of Syrian airspace by the Turks, do they have a leg to stand on? In 2012 Erdogan himself said that a small violation like that could never justify a shootdown. This was after a Turkish F-4 recon plane was shot down by the Syrians for an alleged airspace violation. Since then the Turks have shot down Syrian airplanes in Syrian airspace, and have been quietly trying to enforce an unofficial no fly zone in the northern part of Latakia. The fighters on the ground are not just Turkish nationals, but Turkish citizens, and prominent ones. They receive weapon convoys from Turkey. The Turkish air force is essentially trying to provide them with air cover. What does this look like? Russia crossing a red line? Or the Turks trying to protect some of the rebel groups in northern Syria?
Well "if" is the middle word on "life", and nations and governments fall at the word, if only....

I'm no fan of Erdogan, frankly I think he is taking Turkey down a path that has alienated it adversaries and allies equally.

To me it looks like war by proxy, similar to what Russia was/is doing in Eastern Ukraine. I think that they are trying to protect certain rebel groups yes, but I also think Putin didn't take Turkish threats on the use of force seriously, essentially having an attitude of "no one will dare shoot at us." That's how I see it, and I think that's one reason why Putin seemed so pissed, he was caught off guard by this shoot down. Perhaps he assumed Turkish threats were bluffs?

I don't think Russia can cry foul after all the support they gave the Donbass either. A different situation yes, but carried out in a similar fashion. Much of what you described the Turks doing, the Russians were doing, and with even greater support. I haven't heard of Turkish MLRS batteries engaging Syrian Army positions and then claiming its rebels employing captured equipment and munitions. Sounds to me like the Turks took a page out of Russia's playbook.

And Russia may say Turkey is supporting terrorists, but I think there are those in Ukraine who'd say the same about Russia.

I think Russia needs to realize that there are plenty of countries surrounding Syria that have different strategic objectives, and they won't sit idle so strong arming your way around the Middle East will only suck Russia further into a quagmire, at the risk of also alienating the Sunni states it seeks closer ties with, especially given Russian and Iranian cooperation.
 

Rimasta

Member
Yes but...

This is missing the first part of my post. Let me try again and put what you say (and I agree with) into context.

It is my opinion and only my opinion after watching the Syrian issue for years, that Turkey is trying to drag NATO into the Syrian conflict.

Again it is my opinion that Erdogan cannot be trusted and his agenda seems to be radically different with that of most NATO members, US included.

In that context, I am deeply concerned with Turkey's ability to drag us all into it. Are we willing to go to war with Russia for another 17 sec intrusion into Turkish airspace? Russians will shoot back this time. Putin cannot handle another fighter down without a response.

Even without an airspace violation, Turkey is able to manufacture data. I don't trust them enough on that. Sure, US and the allies will figure it out but their place will be a lose-lose situation. They will have to admit that a NATO member lies or support Turkey. If they support Turkey's position, how are they going to handle an article 5 invocation? Go to war over a lie or shutter NATO's credibility by ignoring it?

I just don't like where this is going.

I agree. I'm no fan of Turkey in NATO, they haven't proven reliable in many cases. I think the assessment of Turkey using NATO as a shield against Russia is pretty accurate.

The problem I see currently is the viability of the Alliance. There's not much enthusiasm to go to war to protect a supposed "ally" but I think there's a threat now to the viability of the Alliance. If turkey is attacked or an escalation occurs, if could severely damage the credibility of the Alliance, and fracturing NATO is widely assumed to be a goal of Russia, splitting NATO politically and militarily.

I do not envy the leaders on either side, there are no good face saving options, just more of the same mess we've become accustomed to.

My worry is, big wars usually start small. WW1 spawned from small and frequent conflicts in the Balkans, WW2 started in places like Finland, Manchuria, and Abyssinia.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well "if" is the middle word on "life", and nations and governments fall at the word, if only....

I'm no fan of Erdogan, frankly I think he is taking Turkey down a path that has alienated it adversaries and allies equally.

To me it looks like war by proxy, similar to what Russia was/is doing in Eastern Ukraine. I think that they are trying to protect certain rebel groups yes, but I also think Putin didn't take Turkish threats on the use of force seriously, essentially having an attitude of "no one will dare shoot at us." That's how I see it, and I think that's one reason why Putin seemed so pissed, he was caught off guard by this shoot down. Perhaps he assumed Turkish threats were bluffs?

I don't think Russia can cry foul after all the support they gave the Donbass either. A different situation yes, but carried out in a similar fashion. Much of what you described the Turks doing, the Russians were doing, and with even greater support. I haven't heard of Turkish MLRS batteries engaging Syrian Army positions and then claiming its rebels employing captured equipment and munitions. Sounds to me like the Turks took a page out of Russia's playbook.

And Russia may say Turkey is supporting terrorists, but I think there are those in Ukraine who'd say the same about Russia.

I think Russia needs to realize that there are plenty of countries surrounding Syria that have different strategic objectives, and they won't sit idle so strong arming your way around the Middle East will only suck Russia further into a quagmire, at the risk of also alienating the Sunni states it seeks closer ties with, especially given Russian and Iranian cooperation.
Similar yes. Except Syria isn't Ukraine, and Russia, unlike the west, is backing Syria with physical troops not just gear and finances. So the risk is much higher. If a US aircraft operating in Ukraine was shot down by Russia, for an alleged airspace violation, how would that go? ;)

Meanwhile, Russia seems to be under the impression that they can deal with the Turkish mess through bigger muscle. Russian long range aviation has been making some maneuvers, that indicate a theoretic capability to strike targets in Turkey.

As for MLRS, Turkey has fired at Syria positions across the border, claiming it was retaliation for shelling Turkish territory. Note that Russia had documented several dozen accidental shellings of Russian soil during the summer of '14. And while they had never acknowledged their own attacks, had they, they could have used the same excuse. ;)

The response to Russian action in Ukraine was universal condemnation, scandal, sanctions. The response to Turkish actions in Syria is an ominous silence. Even on Russia's part. At least until the jet was shot down. Now the situation changes.
 

ZeonChar

New Member
Looks like Russia stepped up it's cooperation with the Kurds, they've bombed rebel positions near Azaz(Border Crossing), and other supply routs toward Aleppo and along the border. All this while the Kurds have launched an operation toward Sheikh Meqsud to cut Turkish supply routs to Jahbat al-Nusra, and allied rebel groups in Aleppo.

Now this is a bit of speculation, and you need a little speculation in this quagmire of a war..... It looks to me if Russia can sway the Kurds away from U.S. influence, they can offer them to keep their land permanently, and offer them protection from Turkish Air Strikes. The SAA can't control the border on their own, they've tried and failed since 2012. If the Kurds keep pushing west, along the border toward the SAA in Latakia, that'll be a victory blow. The Turks have prevented this, and so has the U.S. due to their interests in keeping the F.S.A alive. Not only would the FSA either have to compromise or hold out in small settlements, ISIS would be crippled as well.

Anyways, the Russian Airstrikes in the last 48 hours have been helping Kurds a lot, and with the recent Kurd offensives; I'm left wondering if Russia and them have a behind the scenes agreement for the time-being.

I know there are a lot of opinions here, I've come to this thread for objective insight. I'm neutral, just an average guy.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Looks like Russia stepped up it's cooperation with the Kurds, they've bombed rebel positions near Azaz(Border Crossing), and other supply routs toward Aleppo and along the border. All this while the Kurds have launched an operation toward Sheikh Meqsud to cut Turkish supply routs to Jahbat al-Nusra, and allied rebel groups in Aleppo.

Now this is a bit of speculation, and you need a little speculation in this quagmire of a war..... It looks to me if Russia can sway the Kurds away from U.S. influence, they can offer them to keep their land permanently, and offer them protection from Turkish Air Strikes. The SAA can't control the border on their own, they've tried and failed since 2012. If the Kurds keep pushing west, along the border toward the SAA in Latakia, that'll be a victory blow. The Turks have prevented this, and so has the U.S. due to their interests in keeping the F.S.A alive. Not only would the FSA either have to compromise or hold out in small settlements, ISIS would be crippled as well.

Anyways, the Russian Airstrikes in the last 48 hours have been helping Kurds a lot, and with the recent Kurd offensives; I'm left wondering if Russia and them have a behind the scenes agreement for the time-being.

I know there are a lot of opinions here, I've come to this thread for objective insight. I'm neutral, just an average guy.
Russian support for the Kurds might be the the most effective retaliatory measure against Turkey.
 

stojo

Member
My worry is, big wars usually start small. WW1 spawned from small and frequent conflicts in the Balkans, WW2 started in places like Finland, Manchuria, and Abyssinia.
Unfortunately it startlingly resembles the situation during the run-up to the outbreak of the first world war.

Christopher Clark, the author of the book "Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914", that gained a lot of press a year or two ago, actually decided to write a book on the subject, after he realized how newspaper reports on the bombardment of Libya 2011, are fantastically similar to the reports of the bombardment of Libya in 1910 (one of the first instances of areal bombardment in history). He didn't mention that in the book I think, rather at one of his university lectures.

Multiple players in the world arena, each of them absolutely convinced they don't want a war (at least, as far as politicians are concerned), but on the other side, each of them absolutely convinced that they have to respond strongly to the perceived escalation caused by other players. Until, at the amazement of all of them, world war started before they even realized what happened/

There are, of course, large differences -- nuclear threat being the first one, I also guess there is no immediate pressure made by senior army officers to go to war instantly, but the danger is there...
 

Rimasta

Member
Similar yes. Except Syria isn't Ukraine, and Russia, unlike the west, is backing Syria with physical troops not just gear and finances. So the risk is much higher. If a US aircraft operating in Ukraine was shot down by Russia, for an alleged airspace violation, how would that go? ;)

Meanwhile, Russia seems to be under the impression that they can deal with the Turkish mess through bigger muscle. Russian long range aviation has been making some maneuvers, that indicate a theoretic capability to strike targets in Turkey.
That's why we haven't gotten more directly involved in Ukraine, even to the point of not providing weapons to Ukraine, to avoid escalation. Russian attitudes seem far more cavalier, just like Russian bomber flights to try and intimidate the Turks. The Turks -take it from their Allies - can be a pain in the ass and rarely do what they are expected to do.

I'm sure the Turks are secure in the knowledge that if Russia takes its from theories into practice, then NATO will be involved, and I know NATO has contingency plans on how to neutralize Russian bomber bases, see where this is headed? A very slippery slope, so is Assad and worth it?

And again, that would mean war with NATO and the United States. Russia can make military moves, but it's adversaries are not without teeth so the danger is real, fighting NATO won't be like fighting the Ukrainians.

As I understand it, Turkish tubed artillery was used on several occasions after Syyrian indirect fire landed in Turkey, probably not intentional, but I don't think saying that didn't happen would be accurate.

I think if Russia wants to achieve its objectives without starting "the big one", not giving the Turks and excuse would be a start, conducting combat sorties on each others borders carries inherit risk of a wider war, that should be obvious even before this incident, the recent shoot down should only drive that point home.
 

Rimasta

Member
Unfortunately it startlingly resembles the situation during the run-up to the outbreak of the first world war.

Christopher Clark, the author of the book "Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914", that gained a lot of press a year or two ago, actually decided to write a book on the subject, after he realized how newspaper reports on the bombardment of Libya 2011, are fantastically similar to the reports of the bombardment of Libya in 1910 (one of the first instances of areal bombardment in history). He didn't mention that in the book I think, rather at one of his university lectures.

Multiple players in the world arena, each of them absolutely convinced they don't want a war (at least, as far as politicians are concerned), but on the other side, each of them absolutely convinced that they have to respond strongly to the perceived escalation caused by other players. Until, at the amazement of all of them, world war started before they even realized what happened/

There are, of course, large differences -- nuclear threat being the first one, I also guess there is no immediate pressure made by senior army officers to go to war instantly, but the danger is there...

One book I'm also reminded of is "The Guns of August". It basically talked about how each side thought they could control events, they could predict the moves of their enemies, and how ultimately everyone's preconceived notions were completely wrong and it lead to the Great War.

Nuclear weapons do change the strategic calculus, and that's why I'm against banning them, in my view, a world without nuclear weapons is a world where large conventional wars can happen again without the threat of Damocles Sword annihilating us all in nuclear fire and radiation.

But, at the turn of the 20th century a large European war was considered impossible due to Europes complex system of Alliances, but instead, that very system of Alliances helped the war spread instead of containing it.

I worry about where the world is headed. Another similarity, there hasn't been a major war since WW2, and WW1 started after 100 years of peace in Europe. The weapons had changed so much but the strategies hadn't kept pace, most European powers fought smaller colonial wars against much smaller powers/groups. I would think a new world conflagration would surprise people with the death be destruction it would cause and it would eclipse the previous world wars.

Would Czar Nicholas have fought over Serbia "if" he knew where it would lead the Russian Empire and the Czars? Just like I mentioned to Feanor, "if" can decide the fate of millions of people and the direction of history.
 

ZeonChar

New Member
That's why we haven't gotten more directly involved in Ukraine, even to the point of not providing weapons to Ukraine, to avoid escalation. Russian attitudes seem far more cavalier, just like Russian bomber flights to try and intimidate the Turks. The Turks -take it from their Allies - can be a pain in the ass and rarely do what they are expected to do.

I'm sure the Turks are secure in the knowledge that if Russia takes its from theories into practice, then NATO will be involved, and I know NATO has contingency plans on how to neutralize Russian bomber bases, see where this is headed? A very slippery slope, so is Assad and worth it?

And again, that would mean war with NATO and the United States. Russia can make military moves, but it's adversaries are not without teeth so the danger is real, fighting NATO won't be like fighting the Ukrainians.

As I understand it, Turkish tubed artillery was used on several occasions after Syyrian indirect fire landed in Turkey, probably not intentional, but I don't think saying that didn't happen would be accurate.

I think if Russia wants to achieve its objectives without starting "the big one", not giving the Turks and excuse would be a start, conducting combat sorties on each others borders carries inherit risk of a wider war, that should be obvious even before this incident, the recent shoot down should only drive that point home.
I don't think anybody wants to be turned into radioactive dust, whether you're Russian, American, European, Chinese, or even Turkish. That's why NATO showed so much restraint during the ColdWar, and even now, though they've expanded a lot. World War Three spells doom for all, and no one wants that.

Ukraine has intricacies that can be largely debated on, due to the fact it's ongoing in many ways.

The problem with Syria is even more complex:
1). ISIS, F.S.A, Syria, SDF/Kurds all share a border with Turkey.

2). A majority of the supply lifeline to terrorist organizations in Syria flows through Turkey(I Don't see any Turkish border guards, or military personnel trying to prevent this).

3) It's a complete Quagmire, with Rebel groups fighting each other, some "Moderate" factions aligning themselves with Extremist groups like Al nusra and Al Qaeda.

4). A lot of these rebel groups are opposed to Kurds as well.

Now, what is one common denominator in all of this? The Turkish Border.
The Su-24 that was shot down, was carrying out operations against those very supply lines. It's only Logical for Russia, and even Nato for that matter to close off all those supply routes, at the very least for ISIS. Turkey could have there border tight and secure along the ISIS routes, but they haven't. That's why all these convoys are being bombed, no other logical choice for Russia's goals.
 

barney41

Member
What is the likelihood the Turks actually start bombing pro-Assad forces including the Syrian Army who threaten their ethnic kin, the Turkomen population? Will Russia intervene? They used the same pretext to seize the Crimea and intervene in the Ukraine.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
What is the likelihood the Turks actually start bombing pro-Assad forces including the Syrian Army who threaten their ethnic kin, the Turkomen population? Will Russia intervene? They used the same pretext to seize the Crimea and intervene in the Ukraine.
S-400s are on route to Syria and the Russians will fire them at any Turkish jets over Syrian airspace IMO and that will be Turkey's problem, not NATO's. Even the Turkish leader can figure this out so unless he is a real gambler I can't him taking the risk of bombing Assad's forces.
 

loco

New Member
That's why we haven't gotten more directly involved in Ukraine, even to the point of not providing weapons to Ukraine, to avoid escalation. Russian attitudes seem far more cavalier, just like Russian bomber flights to try and intimidate the Turks. The Turks -take it from their Allies - can be a pain in the ass and rarely do what they are expected to do.

I'm sure the Turks are secure in the knowledge that if Russia takes its from theories into practice, then NATO will be involved, and I know NATO has contingency plans on how to neutralize Russian bomber bases, see where this is headed? A very slippery slope, so is Assad and worth it?

And again, that would mean war with NATO and the United States. Russia can make military moves, but it's adversaries are not without teeth so the danger is real, fighting NATO won't be like fighting the Ukrainians.

As I understand it, Turkish tubed artillery was used on several occasions after Syyrian indirect fire landed in Turkey, probably not intentional, but I don't think saying that didn't happen would be accurate.

I think if Russia wants to achieve its objectives without starting "the big one", not giving the Turks and excuse would be a start, conducting combat sorties on each others borders carries inherit risk of a wider war, that should be obvious even before this incident, the recent shoot down should only drive that point home.
the updates I get on this site have been very helpful, giving me a deep understanding on The political situation in the world today, I have taken my time to read through the whole trend, even the trends on the Ukrainian crises, from what I understand Turkey started their adventures in Syria way before Russia went into Ukraine, if I'm wrong correct me. Thanks
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What is the likelihood the Turks actually start bombing pro-Assad forces including the Syrian Army who threaten their ethnic kin, the Turkomen population? Will Russia intervene? They used the same pretext to seize the Crimea and intervene in the Ukraine.
I think if that happens then the Turks most likely could kiss goodbye to NATO support and protection because there is no mandate from the UN, the Coalition or NATO to attack Assad's forces. If Erdogan does attack Assads forces then the Russians will be within their rights to give the Turks a bloody nose over Syria. I do hope that the Russians have sorted out some deal with the Kurds and that the Kurds do end up with Kurdistan, especially after the way they have been treated by Erdogan and historically by the Turks, Syrians and Iraqis. The Kurds have carried the fight to Daesh and have shed much blood in doing so.

Regarding comparisons to WWI and WWII. Yes I would agree with WWI in that it was a combination of small unrelated incidents, great power alliances, a large imperial ego (Kaiser Wilhelm II) and a disjointed Austro - Hungarian empire that was stagnant and in decline, only held together by the love of its subjects for the old emperor, Franz Jozef. WWII was different. It actually was until December 1941, two separate wars, a European war started by Hitler in 1939 and an Asian war that, some argue, was started in the 1840s, with the European aggressive trade policies in China, which was the start of the change of the status quo in the region. The Chinese did not adapt and learn quickly, whereas the Japanese started to two decades later, with the USN forcing open Japanese ports to foreign devils. The rest as they say is history.
 
Top